Ed Rendell had some great comments on Palin & McCain today. He called her on 'troopergate', on the 'bridge to nowhere', and on the fact that she left the city of Wasilla in debt.
In addition, he called the McCain campaign out on their criticism of Virginia governor Caine when he was on the short list for VP as too 'inexperienced'.
Finally he very bluntly pointed out the cynicism of a campaign that up front says this campaign is not about the issues, but about personalities.
Maybe Obama should not be the one making these attacks, but someone else from our side needs to be putting this out, everyday, just like Palin is attacking Obama at every stop.
Also, someone needs to be talking about McCain too. His voting record on women's issues and the environment need to be brought up.
I was recently working in Yuba City, California (which I sometimes refer to as Fox News Country), and watching the reactions of these women to first Palin and then McCain were interesting. The fascinating thing was that in general the men (30-60) were more impressed with her than the women. But the questions that were being asked by the women (who found her intelligent, interesting, and good with the attacks) were "Where does she stand on the issues? What are they going to do?"
Working people are hurting. After the initial novelty wears off they are going to want specifics.
CBS) Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, and Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. said on Face The Nation Sunday that Republican efforts to exploit divisions between former Hillary Clinton supporters and the rest of the Democratic party will fail. Responding to a new ad from the campaign of John McCain suggesting that Clinton was “passed over” for the vice presidential slot on the Democratic ticket for "speaking the truth" about Barack Obama, Rendell said the spot “will have a three-day life span. “When Hillary Clinton speaks [at the Democratic National Convention] on Wednesday night, she will blow this ad out of the water,” he said. Clinton has expressed support for the Democratic ticket of Obama and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden and has pushed for unity within the party, even as some of her most ardent supporters have grumbled about her being left off the ticket. “Losing an election is always tough,” said Sebelius. “This was a hard-fought and very long race. And as you've already said, 21 debates. I mean, you say a lot of things, you try and get an edge over your opponent. But right now I don't think there's any question at all that the Clintons are wholeheartedly behind Barack Obama. They want to see a Democrat elected president of the United States.” Rendell, who supported Clinton in the Democratic primary, said both an Obama-Biden ticket and an Obama-Clinton ticket would have been good for the Democratic Party. “Hillary Clinton obviously has a longer relationship with a broader spectrum of voters, women voters who've been following her for a long time, but Joe Biden's going to grow on the American people very fast because he's a tremendously engaging guy, a tremendously bright guy, and a guy who's sort of Harry Truman-like: He tells it like it is,” he said. In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric on Saturday, shown on Face The Nation, McCain addressed his inability to say last week how many houses he owns, something Democrats have been hammering as evidence he is out of touch with average Americans' own housing crises. “Well, first of all, let me say that I am grateful for the fact that I have a wonderful life. I spent some years without a kitchen table, without a chair, and I know what it's like to be blessed by the opportunities of this great nation,” McCain said. “Cindy's father barely finished high school, went off and distinguished himself in World War II in a B-17, and he came back with practically nothing and realized the American dream. And I am proud and grateful for that. And I think he is a role model to many young Americans who serve in the military and come back and succeed.” “So the fact is that we have homes and I'm grateful for it,” continued McCain. “We spend our time primarily in Washington, D.C., where I have a condominium in Crystal City; here in this beautiful Sedona that I'm blessed every moment I can spend here; our condominium in Phoenix, Arizona; and a place over in San Diego. The others are also for investment purposes, so all I can say is I am blessed to have the opportunity to continue to be part of a country where you can succeed and do well.”“He says he has seven kitchen tables, we don't want him to have an eighth kitchen table,” Jackson said in response to McCain’s comments. “And we understand that he has a wonderful life. This is a great country. But millions of Americans at this hour are suffering through a housing market that is collapsed, housing foreclosures. "And so when John McCain gets up in the morning and he leaves his house to lock his door, he has to shuffle through a number of keys to figure out which key works in which door in which home he's at at any given time. That suggests, Bob, a significant disconnect [from] the average American who is experiencing quite a different economy than the one John McCain has been advocating.” Asked if Obama needs to “go negative” during the rest of the campaign, Rendell said Obama and Biden would have to take the tone Biden took yesterday, where he criticized McCain for taking similar positions to President Bush. “They're going to say, `Look, John McCain - good man, American hero - but he wants to extend the Bush administration,'” Rendell said. “Of course we're going to fire back, and we should fire back,” Jackson added. “But it can be done in a way that's poetic and substantive.”
CBS) Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, and Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. said on Face The Nation Sunday that Republican efforts to exploit divisions between former Hillary Clinton supporters and the rest of the Democratic party will fail. Responding to a new ad from the campaign of John McCain suggesting that Clinton was “passed over” for the vice presidential slot on the Democratic ticket for "speaking the truth" about Barack Obama, Rendell said the spot “will have a three-day life span. “When Hillary Clinton speaks [at the Democratic National Convention] on Wednesday night, she will blow this ad out of the water,” he said. Clinton has expressed support for the Democratic ticket of Obama and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden and has pushed for unity within the party, even as some of her most ardent supporters have grumbled about her being left off the ticket. “Losing an election is always tough,” said Sebelius. “This was a hard-fought and very long race. And as you've already said, 21 debates. I mean, you say a lot of things, you try and get an edge over your opponent. But right now I don't think there's any question at all that the Clintons are wholeheartedly behind Barack Obama. They want to see a Democrat elected president of the United States.” Rendell, who supported Clinton in the Democratic primary, said both an Obama-Biden ticket and an Obama-Clinton ticket would have been good for the Democratic Party. “Hillary Clinton obviously has a longer relationship with a broader spectrum of voters, women voters who've been following her for a long time, but Joe Biden's going to grow on the American people very fast because he's a tremendously engaging guy, a tremendously bright guy, and a guy who's sort of Harry Truman-like: He tells it like it is,” he said. In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric on Saturday, shown on Face The Nation, McCain addressed his inability to say last week how many houses he owns, something Democrats have been hammering as evidence he is out of touch with average Americans' own housing crises.
“Well, first of all, let me say that I am grateful for the fact that I have a wonderful life. I spent some years without a kitchen table, without a chair, and I know what it's like to be blessed by the opportunities of this great nation,” McCain said. “Cindy's father barely finished high school, went off and distinguished himself in World War II in a B-17, and he came back with practically nothing and realized the American dream. And I am proud and grateful for that. And I think he is a role model to many young Americans who serve in the military and come back and succeed.” “So the fact is that we have homes and I'm grateful for it,” continued McCain. “We spend our time primarily in Washington, D.C., where I have a condominium in Crystal City; here in this beautiful Sedona that I'm blessed every moment I can spend here; our condominium in Phoenix, Arizona; and a place over in San Diego. The others are also for investment purposes, so all I can say is I am blessed to have the opportunity to continue to be part of a country where you can succeed and do well.”
“He says he has seven kitchen tables, we don't want him to have an eighth kitchen table,” Jackson said in response to McCain’s comments. “And we understand that he has a wonderful life. This is a great country. But millions of Americans at this hour are suffering through a housing market that is collapsed, housing foreclosures. "And so when John McCain gets up in the morning and he leaves his house to lock his door, he has to shuffle through a number of keys to figure out which key works in which door in which home he's at at any given time. That suggests, Bob, a significant disconnect [from] the average American who is experiencing quite a different economy than the one John McCain has been advocating.” Asked if Obama needs to “go negative” during the rest of the campaign, Rendell said Obama and Biden would have to take the tone Biden took yesterday, where he criticized McCain for taking similar positions to President Bush. “They're going to say, `Look, John McCain - good man, American hero - but he wants to extend the Bush administration,'” Rendell said. “Of course we're going to fire back, and we should fire back,” Jackson added. “But it can be done in a way that's poetic and substantive.”
Barack Obama is in a full-court press for the next ten weeks as we decide what many believe the most important election in modern history - and few would argue the most important election since FDR's first election in 1932 - a historic election that set the base for modern politics.
Unlike 1932 however, this race will be close and re-define politics once again - despite the outcome. For starters. the electoral map will be redrawn regardless of which candidate wins and you can best believe that Democrats from this point forward will redefine their campaign strategy and how they raise money. Yet something is very odd about this race -- political pundits are pulling their hair out trying to figure out just how Barack can win this election without wining the traditional Blue states and still possibly lose Ohio and Florida.
After much study of trending data put out by most pollsters Barack's path to the Whitehouse will be unique. He can win several (as well as lose several) ways. First, he can win this race without OH and FL, but he cannot win without PA. Barack's likely path to the Whitehouse will be as follows:
VA (13) - CO (9) - NM (5) - NV (5)
There may be one upset in AK (3) - a bonus that may make-up for a possible loss in NV. Pundits are still considering NC - FL - IN as battlegrouds, but by all indications those states will remain Red. Obama's campaign does think that an upset in FL will seal the deal, so to speak, possessing internals that most pollsters are not caputuring - you don't spend the type of money that Barack is spending in a state (as in the case of FL) just so you can prove the "law of diminishing returns." What FL is not caputuring are the youth votes especially among Hispanics/Latinos and Women. Obama is also counting on the increased Democrat voter registration in that state to pull off a possible win that will surely surprise many - including me. Considering how poplar Governor Crisp is not only among Republicans, but Democrats (to include Blacks) is amazing; he is definetely someone you call when the race is settled.
So while all hands are pointing to Ohio - this historic race will be decided by VA - CO - NM - NV. A important strategy is how do you keep PA while doing all of this?! Barack can figure that part out, but one thing is for certain: Governor Rendell has to be on board.
Mark November 4, 2008: It's going to be a wild ride!
Big story in the NYT tonight about how Western PA - which used to be solidly democratic - is much softer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/us/politics/21penn.html
We need to focus on PA, because for all the talk of a new election paradigm, I'm guessing it's the same old same old. PA, OH, and FL. Sure BO is going after all 50 but the math doesn't really add up.
We need to get working class support - we're very weak there - and Ed Rendell, Governor of PA can really help to deliver the state and add an old school democratic touch to the ticket.
McCain's people are going to try and con the white working classes yet again, and they may just do it.
Ability to Serve As President: This is the major role of a Vice President. In 2008, Obama should consider people that could, if needed, fill out the rest of his term. Likely candidates are governors, senators and representatives, military officers, and cabinet members (past and present). Some names that have been mentioned are Janet Napolitano, Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Kathleen Sebelius, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and Jim Webb.
Agreement on the Role of the Vice President: Reagan refused to accept Ford, who wanted to be a co-president. This situation could be a major reason to avoid asking the runner-up to be a running mate.
Beware of Skeletons in the Closet: George McGovern should have investigated Thomas Eagleton's medical history more closely before choosing him as a running mate. Walter Mondale should have investigated Geraldine Ferraro's husband's business dealings more carefully before choosing Ferraro as a running mate.
Balancing the Ticket in Order to Win the Election: This is the traditional reason for choosing a running mate. Presidential candidates often choose a running mate from a different part of the country. A running mate from one of the swing states—such as Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida—might help win that state. Obama has not been in Washington very long, so he might want a running mate with more Washington seniority. On one hand, Obama might want to choose a female running mate. However, since Obama would already be the first black president in history, he might want to avoid any more “firsts” by choosing a white male running mate.
The MouthEd Rendell's charm offensive.Buzz Bissinger, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Roughly a decade ago, when Ed Rendell was the mayor of Philadelphia, he made a controversial decision to appear with Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan at a rally. Farrakhan was in town in the aftermath of an assault by a gang of whites on an African American woman and her son and nephew in a notoriously gritty and racist part of the city. Many politicians, especially Jewish ones, would have kept far away from the incendiary Farrakhan. Portions of Rendell's liberal base were outraged. Protesters marched outside his home. But he went ahead anyway.....more
Mad SkillsThe upside of Jim Webb's anger.Eve Fairbanks, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, June 25, 2008
In the spring of 2006, Jim Webb was not yet a rising superstar. In fact, he was late getting started and low on cash in his effort to win the Virginia Democratic primary, so an admiring Roanoke circuit clerk named Steve McGraw took pity on him and agreed to put him up when he came to southwestern Virginia to campaign. Webb quickly established himself as the model houseguest, washing everybody's chili bowls and shooting pool with McGraw over a bottle of Maker's Mark bourbon. But a worry gnawed at McGraw: The rumor about Webb was that behind the noble-war-hero facade lay a man who harbored a volatile, prideful, and possibly unmanageable anger. "I kept looking for it," confides McGraw. "He started late, with no money. He told me that during the campaign he was sleeping about four hours a night for five months, and he said, 'I just can't turn my brain off.' ... I kept saying, 'Sooner or later, something's gonna happen.'"....more
Let Justice Be DoneLeon Wieseltier, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Whether or not this is the Lord's doing, it is certainly marvelous in our eyes. An African American is the Democratic candidate for president of the United States. The United States! If ever there was an occasion for soaring language, this is it; but the man of the hour has somewhat ruined soaring language. One is left mainly with a gulp, and a tear, and an unfamiliar sensation of the sweetness of history. When is history sweet? Truly this is an American benediction. So hyperbole may be forgiven--as when John Hope Franklin declared to The Washington Post that Obama's candidacy is "the most radical, far-reaching, significant [undertaking] by any individual or group in our history." Perhaps not, but the historian has earned his hour of ecstasy. The great American counterfactual is now a fact. By the standard of where we are, Obama's victory may not be surprising; but by the standard of where we were, it is shocking. Complacence about this turn of events is a form of forgetting. So for a moment I will not care who Barack Obama is. I will care only what he is. The complexities will soon rush in--as they must, because the office that Obama seeks is too powerful to be regarded only sentimentally, or as a symbol--but for now I will pause to savor the simplicity of a fact. Even more, to savor the color of the man's skin: to enjoy (shame on me!) a fleeting racialist thrill. I do not give daps, but when he dapped her on the stage in St. Paul the other night I was happy for them in their particularity. Let the just times roll!....more
Dream OnThe Editors, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The race for the Democratic presidential nomination may be over and Barack Obama may be its winner. But the Clinton family drama goes on. Early this week, as the final primaries took place and the mathematical reality of delegate counts became impossible to deny, Hillary Clinton let it be known that, yes, she'd consider accepting the vice-presidential nomination if Obama offered it to her. The statement gave instant political credibility to an idea already popular in some quarters. For many of Clinton's disappointed supporters, putting her on the ticket is a moral imperative: By virtue of her close second- place finish in delegates and popular votes, Clinton earned the vice presidential nomination. To more disinterested observers, choosing Clinton would represent a savvy strategic choice: During the primaries, her strongest support came primarily from those voters--the white working class and Latinos-- with whom Obama has famously struggled. Putting Clinton on the ticket, according to this argument, solves that problem. It is, say proponents of the scheme, a true Dream Ticket.....more
Apparently Ms. Clinton has said she would be 'open' to being the vice-president on a ticket with Obama.
Great. Wonderful. I THINK I'd rather go through a prostate exam.
Remember, I am Republican and don't hide this fact. Clinton on the ticket in any fashion and where I vote goes up in question--and probably, I'd vote for McCain. --yes, I've seen the billions of internet posts saying the same thing (though usually from people purporting to being Clinton supporters). But I AM Republican, haven't hidden that, and won't hide my hatred for the policies/beliefs/attitudes of Hillary and Bill Clinton.
So why is the VP important? Long ago, one of the guys FDR asked to be his VP said 'The vice-presidency ain't worth a bucket of warm spit." And generally, that's true. Except for someone like FDR's 1944 running mate who wound up president upon FDR's sudden death (Truman in case readers don't know). The vice-president is only important as a hand-shaker and in case the president is killed/dies in office. Otherwise, the VP is useless.
The argument in her favor used by pundits is that of the 'dream ticket'--even with candidates who dislike one another (JFK/LBJ), there are sound political reasons for putting candidates together. In the case of LBJ, he brought Texas into the Democratic column, and also had a TON of leadership experience in the Senate. It was LBJ's contacts/experience that really made the difference in the 1960s civil rights legislation. So fair enough, LBJ was a significant VP.
But that doesn't make Clinton the same, or that this shotgun wedding makes sense because one made sense 48 years ago. LBJ was selected because he 'guaranteed' Texas for the Democratic Party -AND- because he had years of leadership experience in Congress which helped because of JFK's inexperience.
So---does Clinton guarantee New York? --It's irrelevant. Obama could put a piece of swiss cheese as his VP and New York will vote Democrat in November.
Does Clinton have vast experience with Congress? --Nope. She's a novice senator, and regardless of what some hacks say, being married to the governor/president is NOT the same as actual real government experience.
Obama needs someone else. He needs someone from a contested state such as Pennsylvania or perhaps Florida. Given the image that he is 'inexperienced' with foreign policy or that he has not been a governor--Obama could use a candidate who complements those weaknesses. So why not one of these?
Ed Rendell - PA: He's a governor, he has the support of almost all of Clinton's supporters. He's said he is willing to be in a Cabinet, and he has said he has no intention of running again for governor--so it would give the Democratic Party a two-year head start on the '10 campaign.
Jim Webb - VA: Yes, he's new to Congress, but he has crossover potential since he served in Reagan's administration (and I LOVE all things Reagan). He's top-notch on military issues and appeals to independents as well.
There are others too...but I have to go fix a toy in my son's room. Politics are wonderful to write about but a man has to have his priorities in the right place.
...In Boca Raton, he was asked about his criteria for choosing a vice president. "My goal is to have the best possible government," Obama responded. "I am very practical-minded." He noted that one of his heroes, Abraham Lincoln, named political rivals to his Cabinet. "How can we get this country through this time of crisis? That has to be the approach that one takes." He added: "By the way, that does not exclude Republicans, either. The best person for the job is the person I would want."...
...In Boca Raton, he was asked about his criteria for choosing a vice president. "My goal is to have the best possible government," Obama responded. "I am very practical-minded." He noted that one of his heroes, Abraham Lincoln, named political rivals to his Cabinet. "How can we get this country through this time of crisis? That has to be the approach that one takes."
He added: "By the way, that does not exclude Republicans, either. The best person for the job is the person I would want."...
From May 23, 2008 Washington Post article: 'Obama, McCain Begin Running-Mate Searches, News of a Vetting Pick and a Weekend Gathering'
The WashPost then speculates that Obama's list includes Joe Biden, Sam Nunn, Jim Webb, Kathleen Sibelius, Janet Napolitano, Claire McCaskill, Evan Bayh, Ed Rendell, Ted Strickland, Chuck Hagel, and Michael Bloomberg.
Birdalone notes that the WashPost isn't reading the New York Times about Bloomberg's authoritarian, top-down management style and temper, which has always been my reason for Bloomberg's incompatibility with Obama, in addition to Bloomberg being a very liberal Democrat who became a Republican in name only in order to get a spot on the New York ballot in 2001 - it's tough fighting the NYC Dem machine in a primary.
Read the whole article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052204145.html?sid=ST2008052300071
or here:
Well Its a lot more low key here today, I think the majority of people are walking around in shock, I mean we knew it would be hard, but the city was so Fired up it was easy to think the rest of the state would agree with us. But as I was walking to class this morning in Center city I came to an intersection where a woman was handing out free metro newspapers, will Hillary's face on the front, and as I reached up to take one she saw my Obama pin, and tapped it with her free hand and said- "Yup, well we still got this!!" that was a nice little moment, I nodded and told her we sure did.
Yeah that's right I am still wearing my PIN! Woot woot, represent!
Honestly how dumb do Nutter and Rendell feel when their city does not agree with their endorsement!?!? Philly went for Obama, by one account by 64% and I'm sure that number will increase as the rest of the numbers come in! We Love you OBAMA! Come back anytime!
Why won't the MSM talk about Gov. Rendell's endorsement of Farrakhan?
Why is the smear campaign reserved only for Sen. Obama/US?
Part I - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbYIS4704Ng
Part II - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCGaIhlvyF4
WHY? WHY? WHY? PLEASE COPY/PASTE THIS ONTO MSM websites, please!
OK, so let us get a bit of the rank hypocrisy of Clinton's attacks on Obama on the table shall we? In the last (hopefully) Democratic debate, Clinton went hard at Obama for his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright's, praise of Louis Farrakhan, trying to create a suspicion of guilt by association. This game is despicable, but can be effective if you don't care about the truth of your assertions or their relative importance (win at any cost)--AND if you do not have similar problems. But for Clinton, there do seem to be similar problems. It turns out, as reported by the Huffington Post, that her star backer in Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, spoke with FULSOME praise of Farrakhan back in 1997. Here is the story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/ed-rendell-clinton-surrog_n_97784.html
So does this mean that Clinton should renounce Ed Rendell?
The answer should be that it would be asinine of her to do so, given that Ed Rendell is such a good and popular politician, but, in this instance, clearly not perfect or completely averse to playing the political game (in this case in Philadelphia).
However:that I can even pose this question shows the stupidity of Clinton's whole campaign to this point.
If you read this and have any chance to influence Pennsylvanians to vote for Obama today, you might want to point out that the initial scaremongering about Farrakhan by Clinton is just that, demagogic scaremongering, and nothing that she herself believes. It is just "politics" but of the worst, most hypocritical type, as is so much of her campaign so far. That is the sort of politics Obama is against, and the fact that he stands the best chance in a generation to change the fetid political culture of this country is one of the main reasons I am such a strong supporter.
Go Obama!
As almost everybody knows, there have been constant attempts to link Barack Obama who are perceived as nonfavorable to a large part of the public. Well, I hate to do this, but I came accross this article on the Huffington Post about how Ed Rendell, Clinton's chief surrogate in PA, praised Farrakhan in a speech a couple of years back. Please check it out by clicking the link below.
Rendell and Farrakhan
(CNN) — A key backer of Hillary Clinton's White House bid gave her top strategist Mark Penn a less than ringing endorsement Sunday, following news Penn had met with the Colombian ambassador to promote a free trade agreement the New York senator opposes.
Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell didn't exactly give the longtime Clinton pollster a vote of confidence.
Asked directly if the campaign should cut ties with Penn, Rendell said, "Well there are a lot of issues in which you can raise that question."
"Yeah, I think you've got to make it very clear for someone who is a consultant, who you are representing and who you are not representing and I would hope that Mr. Penn when he talked to the Colombians made that clear," Rendell also said. "And it doesn't sound to me like he did and that's something the campaign should take into question."
Late last week it was reported by the Wall Street Journal that Penn had met with the Colombian ambassador on Monday to promote a free trade agreement that Hillary Clinton has sharply criticized on the campaign trail. Penn's P.R. firm Burson-Marsteller had a contract with Colombia to promote the agreement, though a spokesman for Colombia's president told the paper he didn't know if Penn was representing Clinton or his P.R. firm in the meeting.
On Friday, Penn said he was acting in his role as CEO of Burson-Marsteller and called the meeting a "error in judgment." Upset with that characterization, the Colombian government cut ties with Penn's firm on Saturday.
From: CNN Ticker Producer Alex Mooney
I don't think that we can comment on this. In fact, I think if we speak out about it, we will only help the Clinton effort. I do think, however, that we can share this article with our progressive friends who are pro-Hillary, or who are on the fence.
From: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3597/the_clinton_firewall/
The Clinton Firewall
The New York Senator’s last-ditch efforts to win the Democratic
nomination could rely on the “Race Chasm” and the trampling of
democracy.
By David Sirota
“Just flip it for a second,” Mr. Rendell said. “Let’s say Senator Clinton was ahead by about 110 delegates and ahead by less than 1 percent of the vote cast, and she and her supporters started to call on Senator Obama to get out. Just picture what the media would be saying. They’d be saying you’re being racist, you’re being everything in the world. It’s nuts! It’s nuts!”
New York Times, 3/29
Guess what, if Obama were the one who lost after Super Tuesday back in February, Obama would have been out for a long time!
The Clintons have been calling the shots throughout this campaign. They've been calling which states are "must-wins", "firewalls", they've been deciding whether big states matter or small states, blue states or red states. So stop playing victim and flipping the truth for your convenience!
Oh, and also stop playing the race card.
I Pride myself on attempting to stay positive about this election. I do read some critical articles like we all do, but on the whole I prefer to stay above the fray, spread the truth about policies and not as much about gossip, etc. But I am having a little moment here and I need to vent to my Obama peeps here.
So I'm watching hardball and it must be slow goings in the news world to keep bringin up this idea of a joint ticket!! What are they smoking? Seriously. case closed already aint gonna happen. At least I HOPE NOT!!
I know OBama can't come out and say no to a joint ticket while this race is still on, but by being forced into having Hillary as his V.P. would be political suicide. What the media is not covering is the larger dynamic here. We just saw the polls on revenge voting this week. And what I wrote in an earlier blog- about all this- holds true in this case as well. All the cross overs who are coming from other parties would have a hard time voting for Obama, the candidate that they love, if SHE was on the ticket. In addition- you can forget swaying any more republicans who might have been on the fence- if you put Hillary on the ticket!!! Basically- welcome McCain to the Oval Office if we do.
And why are people giving Dodd and Leahy a hard time for speaking the TRUTH. If you ask me not enough people are coming out and saying that she needs to drop out already. The Clintons can spin it all they want and say that the Obama camp is just fearing the possible win Hillary has bought out of fear and old school politics in Pa next month. but facts are facts ITS OVER.
And here's the thing Hillary- YOU CAN NOT WIN!! SO GET OVER IT!!! Suck it up, have some dignity and some class for a change and think about the real voices of the american people. You bitch and moan about the illegal elections in MI and FL- that their voices need to be heard and yet you keep marching on possibly ruining the Dems chances of winning in the fall BY NOT LISTENING TO THE VOICES!!!!
America has voted!! We WANT OBAMA!!! Enough already.
there have been plenty of years when the election has not gone on this long, and no matter its length at this point. YOU CAN NOT WIN! ITS OVER its O-V-E-R OVER.
And if you try anything dirty (too late, I know...) but if you try anything dirty to over throw his pledged delegates and popular vote- you can count me out. And I know I'm not alone in this. But it means- bye bye democracy. It will prove that the past two F***ed up elections is a serious trend and you will have offically nailed the final nail into the coffin of American democracy.
sorry for the rant, but come on already enough is enough.....
and here are some great articles in case you are running out of stuff to read!
letter from Rev Wright to the TIMES:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/flashback-wrights-lette_n_93820.html
how NH feels about the Clintons today:
and the article from the Rolling Stones: "Clinton's Flimsy case" THIS IS A MUST READ!!! I think this is one of the reasons I am so tuned up!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/19767182/hillarys_flimsy_case
(CNN) -- Facing fire from some fellow Democrats for his decision to endorse Sen. Barack Obama, Gov. Bill Richardson said Sunday he still considers himself loyal to the family that helped make his political career.
Gov. Bill Richardson endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, but says he is very loyal to the Clintons.
"I am very loyal to the Clintons. I served under President Clinton. But I served well. And I served the country well. And he gave me that opportunity," Richardson told "Fox News Sunday."
"But you know ... it shouldn't just be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton," he said.
Richardson was secretary of energy under the Clinton administration, a post that helped bring him to national prominence and win the governorship of New Mexico in 2002.
Richardson, who abandoned his presidential bid January 10, endorsed Obama on Friday as the Democratic nominee. He called Sen. Hillary Clinton Thursday to tell her of his decision, Clinton's campaign said. Watch what was behind Richardson's decision »
The Clinton campaign shrugged off the endorsement. "Both candidates have many great endorsers, but the voters, not endorsers, will decide this election, and there are still millions of voters in upcoming contests who want to have their voices heard," Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said.
Richardson was asked Sunday about James Carville's comment that Richardson's Obama endorsement "came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver." Carville is an adviser to Clinton's presidential campaign and a CNN political analyst.
"Well, I'm not going to get in the gutter like that," Richardson said. "And you know, that's typical of many of the people around Sen. Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency."
Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, a prominent Clinton supporter, told Fox that he has no problem with Richardson's decision. He accused the Obama campaign of complaining about negativity while launching unfair attacks on Clinton.
Discussing a spat over whether Bill Clinton had challenged Obama's patriotism, Rendell said Obama is trying "to have it both ways."
The former president's remark last week that "it would be a great thing if we had an election where you had two people who love this country" sparked a dispute over whether he was questioning Obama's patriotism.
The full quote: "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
The Clinton campaign denied any slight to Obama's patriotism. But retired Gen. Tony McPeak, an Obama surrogate, compared Clinton to Joe McCarthy.
McCarthy was a senator who was known for leveling accusations that people were Communists or spying for the Russians in the 1950s.
Richardson said he does not think former President Clinton was implying that Obama is unpatriotic.
Richardson added, "The campaign has gotten too negative -- too many personal attacks, too much negativity that is not resounding with the public."
Rendell responded, "They say the campaign's too negative, and they go out and turn an innocent remark -- Bill Clinton was saying what a lot of us feel ... If they want to tone it down, don't accuse someone of McCarthyism."
Richardson responded, "There's been negativity on both sides."
Rendell also accused the Obama camp of contradicting itself in another way that Richardson's endorsement highlights.
"First, they say the superdelegates should reflect the will of the people of their states. Well, we have Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry saying they're going to vote for Obama even though Sen. Clinton won by 13 points in Massachusetts. ... The voters of New Mexico chose Sen. Clinton. If we follow the Obama line, Bill Richardson should be for Sen. Clinton."
"Yes, but, Eddie, by half a percent -- come on," Richardson responded, in a reference to the slight margin by which Clinton won New Mexico.
In a February interview with The New York Times, Richardson discussed how superdelegates should vote. "It should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency," he told the newspaper at the time.
Before dropping out of the race, Richardson, 60 -- the same age as Clinton -- ran on his experience. His campaign called him "the only candidate with the foreign policy experience and vision to restore America's standing around the world."
Rendell again
I have been thinking about what I wrote yesterday, especially as regards Ed Rendell, and trying to figure out what it is that creeps me out about his statement that some Pennsylvanian voters “probably were not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”
A couple of replies to this from Pennsylvanians have said, basically, that I should lay off Rendell, because he was just being honest about racism in Pennsylvania, at least among some Pennsylvanians, which exists, as one commenter said: “sad but true”. And there is something to this—Rendell’s own spokesman said that Rendell was just being “realistic” when he said this to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. And, after all, Ed Rendell, appears to all the world to be a good guy. He was a good, effective and popular mayor of Philadelphia and also a good, very popular governor of Pennsylvania, a unifier and not a divider and the last person one would suspect, or should suspect, of being a racist, especially given his (not particularly emphasized) Jewish background. So perhaps it was just a statement of fact after all?
Yet I am not alone in thinking that, if so, it was a very unfortunate statement, one which Rendell, who had endorsed Clinton, ought to have known better not to make, given the sensitivity of such issues. The Philadelphia Inquirer came to the same conclusion. (http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20080215_Editorial__Rendell_on_Obama.html)
So there was a “sin of commission” inasmuch as even if it was an “innocent” statement of mere fact, it opened up Rendell and the Clinton campaign to the charge of roiling the racial waters (see yesterday’s blog).
But what I have figured out is really bothering me is not the sin of commission but the sin of omission. Perhaps I have missed it, and supporters and fans of Rendell please correct me if I am wrong, but surely there should have been some accompanying expression of OUTRAGE, and even SHAME, from Rendell about the fact that, in 2008, over forty years after the Civil Rights Act, in the state of which he is governor, the state that is supposed to epitomize “brotherly love”, founded by the Quakers, a group who did more than almost any other to fight slavery, there are still thousands of individuals, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who are “not ready to vote” for a black man. That is to say, it is not simply that these voters are looking at the respective character and policies of the candidates involved and then making their choice for Clinton (and no one demands that individual voters MUST vote only for Obama), but rather than, no matter how brilliant the candidate, how great his policies, these voters are “not ready to vote” for the candidate if he is black. There are, in other words, even in 2008, a huge number of bigots and racists populating Pennsylvania, by the account of that state’s own governor.
Rendell himself quantifies the number of such hardened racists (for that is what they are) as making up about 5% of the gap between him and Lynn Swann in the 2006 gubernatorial election. I assume this means 2.5% of the Pennsyvanian electorate is thus racist—if the proportion holds in the state’s population as a whole, then 300,000 Pennsylvanians are racist. Consider that the next time you go there for a vacation.
These figures come from Rendell himself, in his analysis of why Obama probably would not do so well in Pennsylvania, and not as well as Clinton, and I suspect he is telling it as it is, but what I find off-putting is the completely matter-of-fact manner in which, apparently, he stated this. If I had been elected with the help of bigots and racists to my position, would I not be at least embarrassed about it? Embarrassed enough to say that this is a stain on my election? That I am going to dedicate myself to fighting this plague of prejudice and bigotry, and tell those of my supporters who think this way that this is totally unacceptable to me, to other Pennsylvanians, and indeed to all decent Americans? That not even being “ready to vote” for a black man is not some psychological malady, or a reasonable excuse, but wrong, deeply wrong? That in the state of Ben Franklin, to think thus is completely unreasonable, un-Pennsylvanian and, indeed, in 2008, radically un-American?
After all, given the country’s history, is there any greater crime against the meaning of the United States of America than prejudice, bigotry and discrimination against African-Americans? Should one not try to combat it vigorously and decry it wherever it exists, especially amongst one’s own supporters?
Yet, from the report of Rendell’s discussion at the Post-Gazette, Rendell appears to have blithely used this continuation of America’s “original sin” as just one more debating point. And that, at the end of the day, is deeply disappointing not only concerning Rendell, but also about the state of American politics in general. No wonder some African Americans still find it difficult automatically to feel pride in their country. But let’s hope the nomination of Barack Obama as Democratic candidate and his eventual election as President of the United States of America will at last prove to Americans and to the rest of the world that the American mission of enlightenment, fairness, liberty and basic decency is not a mirage, but a living reality. And we should recommit ourselves to making that happen.
And it would be nice if Rendell himself stood up for equality and decency and forcefully asserted that the idea that any voter in Pennsylvania, of whatever party, and especially in the Democratic Party, was “not ready to vote for an African-American candidate” is totally unacceptable, indeed unforgivable, in today’s America.
I told ya so. Keith Olberman spelled it out like it is. I have been reading responses to Geraldine Ferraro's comments and have been bitterly disappointed at how few people actually found what she said offensive. It's like one of Barack's lead campaign people expressing how if Hillary were a man she would have this locked up already. Now...would that not be sexist..?? Ferraro's comments were racist and she has been saying similar things for almost 15 years already. Pardon my Francaise but if it looks like merde and smells like merde then chances are it is merde. And her "resignation" from the Hillary campaign was poorly handled. First of all she should have been fired by Hillary instead of given the opportunity to scream "i'm a victim of bias" ( a Hillary tactic..) while at the same time giving America the "finger" as she walks out. Some of her supporters have been arguing that there is still free speech in this country and i happen to agree. it's just that some speeches are better left for a KKK rally somewhere in the backwoods of neverland. Yes she has the right to free speech and so have i. I call Geraldine Ferraro a racist. I feel that now all she can do is taint anything she touches...kinda like King Midas but in reverse. Next target: Ed Rendell governor of Pennsylvania and avid Hillary supporter who gives loud voice to the inner redneck stating that some whites in his state are not ready to vote for a black man for president. This is probably true in any state of this union but why give them a forum of such scale..?? Is he trying to tell me that if a Democrat wants to win the White House...a white person has a better chance and therefore i should support Hillary...???? Um...Ed....you are stupid. I wish you would resign as Governor. I'm not calling him a racist...just a coward. How could you not as governor make an honest attempt to help the people of your state see beyond the color of your skin or the sound of your name. No he just looks at the status quo and basically says:"why rock the boat". Coward. I've got some news for you Mr. Rendell. As it stands there is no way in hell that i would ever vote for Hillary should she win the Democratic nomination. I'll vote for Ralph Nader and take my chances with John McCain as right now i feel i have more in common with him than i do Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Why on earth would i want to vote for someone divisive, angry, dismissive and fear mongering to be President of these United States..?? Someone who dismisses the ideas of hope and change as mere folly and unattainable...?? Message to Barack Obama; Ask Samantha Powers to come back. Ask that Pulitzer prize winning, genius of an Irish immigrant to rejoin your campaign and continue to speak the truth. And as for the rest of you: Please see the Olberman commentary...it's like Viagra for the brain.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23601329#23601329
